Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-09-24, Mike Rivers wrote:
Why? What does that buy you? Headroom in the dynamic range? Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued against something that increased your headroom in any domain? I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit device. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:36:22 GMT, james of tucson
wrote: Why? What does that buy you? Headroom in the dynamic range? Before the computer entered the picture, would you have ever argued against something that increased your headroom in any domain? I believe my 16 bit recording is better for having been done on a 24 bit device. You don't really get headroom. You don't own a source that has 16 bits of dynamic range, let alone 24. What it does give you is a bigger window in which to place the range you CAN supply. It lets you be sloppy with record levels without falling into the noise floor. Not that this isn't useful :-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-11-08, Mike Rivers wrote:
Depends on how much headroom I needed and how much it cost. In a pop music world where dynamic range on recordings is limited (literally) to less than 6 dB I play and record classical (and classical-ish) piano and flute. I cannot tell any difference between takes at 16 and 24 bit on the same equipment, but I don't care. I have 24 (32) bits available in my digital signal path, and I'm not out of disk space or anything. Until a couple of years ago, I was using consumer cassette tape, so everything sounds good to me :-) I wouldn't doubt it, but that may be because the 24-bit device that you're using today is just plain better overall than the 16-bit device you used previously. I'm going to agree with you, but I'm not seeing any argument that would support buying a 16 bit recorder in this day and age. Particularly when I already have adopted the Deltas as the only serious choice :-) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-09-22, Laurence Payne wrote: The price point on the Delta 1010 is perfect, and the hardware itself is the cat's meow. There are better sounding options from RME and Lynx that don't cost all that much more. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
james of tucson wrote:
On 2004-09-22, Laurence Payne wrote: The price point on the Delta 1010 is perfect, and the hardware itself is the cat's meow. There are better sounding options from RME and Lynx that don't cost all that much more. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio | |||
OT? Win98SE, help with audio recording from sound card? | General |